4This is an implementation of Cloud Haskell, as described in
5/Towards Haskell in the Cloud/ by Jeff Epstein, Andrew Black, and Simon
7<http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/parallel/>),
8although some of the details are different. The precise message passing
9semantics are based on /A unified semantics for future Erlang/ by Hans
10Svensson, Lars-Åke Fredlund and Clara Benac Earle.
12For a detailed description of the package and other reference materials,
13please see the distributed-process wiki page on github:
14<https://github.com/haskell-distributed/distributed-process/wiki>.
17module Control.Distributed.Process
25 , liftIO -- Reexported for convenience
40 -- * Unsafe messaging variants
45 -- * Advanced messaging
70 -- * Process management
79 , ProcessTerminationException(..)
80 , ProcessRegistrationException(..)
86 -- * Monitoring and linking
98 , MonitorRef -- opaque
99 , ProcessLinkException(..)
100 , NodeLinkException(..)
101 , PortLinkException(..)
102 , ProcessMonitorNotification(..)
103 , NodeMonitorNotification(..)
104 , PortMonitorNotification(..)
121 , registerRemoteAsync
122 , reregisterRemoteAsync
123 , unregisterRemoteAsync
128 -- * Exception handling
145 -- * Local versions of 'spawn'
153#if ! MIN_VERSION_base(4,6,0)
154import Prelude hiding (catch)
157import Control.Monad.IO.Class (liftIO)
158import Control.Applicative ((<$>))
159import Control.Monad.Reader (ask)
160import Control.Concurrent.MVar (newEmptyMVar, takeMVar, putMVar)
161import Control.Distributed.Static
167import Control.Distributed.Process.Internal.Types
172 , ProcessMonitorNotification(..)
173 , NodeMonitorNotification(..)
174 , PortMonitorNotification(..)
175 , ProcessLinkException(..)
176 , NodeLinkException(..)
177 , PortLinkException(..)
178 , ProcessRegistrationException(..)
187 , LocalProcess(processNode)
190import Control.Distributed.Process.Serializable (Serializable)
191import Control.Distributed.Process.Internal.Primitives
204 -- Advanced messaging
229 -- Process management
231 , ProcessTerminationException(..)
241 -- Monitoring and linking
261 , registerRemoteAsync
262 , reregisterRemoteAsync
263 , unregisterRemoteAsync
269 -- Exception handling
287import Control.Distributed.Process.Node (forkProcess)
288import Control.Distributed.Process.Internal.Spawn
289 ( -- Spawning Processes/Channels
300-- 1. 'send' never fails. If you want to know that the remote process received
301-- your message, you will need to send an explicit acknowledgement. If you
302-- want to know when the remote process failed, you will need to monitor
303-- that remote process.
305-- 2. 'send' may block (when the system TCP buffers are full, while we are
306-- trying to establish a connection to the remote endpoint, etc.) but its
307-- return does not imply that the remote process received the message (much
308-- less processed it). When 'send' targets a local process, it is dispatched
309-- via the node controller however, in which cases it will /not/ block. This
310-- isn't part of the semantics, so it should be ok. The ordering is maintained
311-- because the ctrlChannel still has FIFO semantics with regards interactions
312-- between two disparate forkIO threads.
314-- 3. Message delivery is reliable and ordered. That means that if process A
315-- sends messages m1, m2, m3 to process B, B will either arrive all three
316-- messages in order (m1, m2, m3) or a prefix thereof; messages will not be
317-- 'missing' (m1, m3) or reordered (m1, m3, m2)
319-- In order to guarantee (3), we stipulate that
321-- 3a. We do not garbage collect connections because Network.Transport provides
322-- ordering guarantees only *per connection*.
324-- 3b. Once a connection breaks, we have no way of knowing which messages
325-- arrived and which did not; hence, once a connection fails, we assume the
326-- remote process to be forever unreachable. Otherwise we might sent m1 and
327-- m2, get notified of the broken connection, reconnect, send m3, but only
330-- 3c. As a consequence of (3b) we should not reuse PIDs. If a process dies,
331-- we consider it forever unreachable. Hence, new processes should get new
332-- IDs or they too would be considered unreachable.
334-- Main reference for Cloud Haskell is
336-- [1] "Towards Haskell in the Cloud", Jeff Epstein, Andrew Black and Simon
338-- http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/parallel/remote.pdf
340-- The precise semantics for message passing is based on
342-- [2] "A Unified Semantics for Future Erlang", Hans Svensson, Lars-Ake Fredlund
343-- and Clara Benac Earle (not freely available online, unfortunately)
345-- Some pointers to related documentation about Erlang, for comparison and
348-- [3] "Programming Distributed Erlang Applications: Pitfalls and Recipes",
349-- Hans Svensson and Lars-Ake Fredlund
350-- http://man.lupaworld.com/content/develop/p37-svensson.pdf
351-- [4] The Erlang manual, sections "Message Sending" and "Send"
352-- http://www.erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/processes.html#id82409
353-- http://www.erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/expressions.html#send
354-- [5] Questions "Is the order of message reception guaranteed?" and
355-- "If I send a message, is it guaranteed to reach the receiver?" of
357-- http://www.erlang.org/faq/academic.html
358-- [6] "Delivery of Messages", post on erlang-questions
359-- http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2012-February/064767.html
361--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
362-- Local versions of spawn --
363--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
365-- | Spawn a process on the local node
366spawnLocal :: Process () -> Process ProcessId
368 node <- processNode <$> ask
369 liftIO $ forkProcess node proc
371-- | Create a new typed channel, spawn a process on the local node, passing it
372-- the receive port, and return the send port
373spawnChannelLocal :: Serializable a
374 => (ReceivePort a -> Process ())
375 -> Process (SendPort a)
376spawnChannelLocal proc = do
377 node <- processNode <$> ask
380 _ <- forkProcess node $ do
381 -- It is important that we allocate the new channel in the new process,
382 -- because otherwise it will be associated with the wrong process ID
383 (sport, rport) <- newChan
384 liftIO $ putMVar mvar sport
keysesc to close
- j k
- move down, up
- enter
- open
- esc
- back, or up a level
- 1 2 3 4
- readme, files, commits, refs
- /
- filter
- y
- copy the clone command
- c
- compare the chosen commit with another (or shift-click both)
- ?
- show or hide this list